Thursday, April 03, 2014

I would characterize McIntyre’s denial as denying the assertion that paleo types have the foggiest clue what they are doing, mathwise. This is not conspiracy ideation, it is in the grand tradition of upholding what is correct in science. Sloppiness is not a valid scientific method, no matter your motivations.

I should point out that Loehle made some corrections to his 2007 paper (the one that was pretty thoroughly pierced on RC) in Loehle & McCullough 2008. Oddly, though, after having acquired a statistically knowledgeable co-author (apparently they met in the comments section of Climate Audit), Loehle proceeded to ignore the gist of McCullough's advice, relegating it to a largely ignored "supplemental information" section of LM08 (bearing McCullough's name alone) that is omitted from the main .pdf and is pretty hard to find even with The Google.

The reason for this ejection from Eden is easy to see when one examines McCullough's supplemental, wherein he correctly weights each of Loehle's time series by the inverse of their individual errors, and by so doing reduces the magnitude of the Medieval Warm Period by a significant amount, rendering it less that current temps. Horrors! But the supremacy of the MWP was the result Loehle had intended to show, thus the correctly computed supplemental goes down the memory hole. Standard.

but.... the Loehle & McCullough 2008 reconstruction features in the AR5 WGI Chapter 5 figure 5.7 along with the other hockey stick graphs, a bit more peaky than the others in Medieval times but even there well below modern measured temperatures.

Is the IPCC slipping up in Suppressing The Truth, or has Loehle caved in to the system and forgone his Martyrdom?

Loehle is projecting big time in that comment. His latest paper that he managed to get into print in a journal despite it being outside the journal's mandate, is nothing but an exercise in curve fitting and mathurbation with magical cycles.

How did he get it published despite it being outside the journal's mandate? When take a gander of the editors.

"Brer Rabett, sad day for you and your bosom buddy,Russell. Frontier through Lew under the bus. Who should have known? -Oh"

Given that the blog post directly contradicts the official statement the journal made earlier, I'd say it's a great day for "Lew". It simply underscores how screwed up the journal's actions have been in regard to the paper. UWA legal stands behind it, and the university is standing behind the researcher as firmly as one can imagine. The paper is still available online. Its popularity has soared as a result of its retraction.

dhogaza,"Given that the blog post directly contradicts the official statement the journal made earlier, I'd say it's a great day for "Lew". It simply underscores how screwed up the journal's actions have been in regard to the paper. UWA legal stands behind it, and the university is standing behind the researcher as firmly as one can imagine. The paper is still available online. Its popularity has soared as a result of its retraction.

Members of the warmist cult have an unlimited capacity to rationalize. It truly is sad. Defending that garbage paper says a lot about you dhogaza. Keeping that rag up on their website exposes them to legal action. Bet it is down next week.

"Given that the blog post directly contradicts the official statement the journal made earlier, I'd say it's a great day for "Lew". It simply underscores how screwed up the journal's actions have been in regard to the paper. UWA legal stands behind it, and the university is standing behind the researcher as firmly as one can imagine. The paper is still available online. Its popularity has soared as a result of its retraction. "

It's quite telling that UWA is still standing up for Lewandowsky even after he's moved to Bristol. I'm mightily impressed to see how strongly they are supporting their researchers even when they move on.

On the matter of the paper's popularity both Lewandowsky and UWA must be rubbing their hands in glee. Stephan will (ironically) be getting much more coverage of his work and his thesis with the fact of the botched retraction instigated by the very subjects of his paper, and UWA will be relishing the hits for the paper and the increased institutional visibility it provides.

Blogger skipped taking an identity; I pointed to what I said<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014-part-ii/comment-page-2/#comment-493956> about Frontier's editors' statement</a>

I know that it's just an oversight on your part, but you seem to have forgotten to confirm that you've lodged US$500.00 with Br'er Eli. My US$1000.00 is waiting to follow, but you'll need to inform the thread by 5:00 pm tomorrow (Friday) Western Australia time to be able to fleece me.

I do so want to give my money to you (minus $100.00 for Eli's troubles). I'm sure that you're just as keen to take it from me, so I will await your post on this thread to inform of your deposit (and followed by Eli's confirmation) with great anticipation.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.